What is the definition of G.O.A.T

How is it a "Weak Era"? I could just as easily say Laver and Sampras played in equally weak eras. There's no way to substantiate it.

Click to expand...

easy.And this has nothing to see with talent but with the reality of times.

Laver had to face, while winning the GS, multislam champs such as Newcombe,Hoad,Rosewall,Gonzales,Gimeno,Santana,Roche,Emerson,Stolle,Ashe ,Smith ( and he had also Kodes and Nastase in the fields) and Sampras had to deal with
Becker,Lendl,Courier,Agassi,Edberg,Stich,ivanisevic,Bruguera,Chang,Krajicek,Kafelnikov or Muster, who also won majors in the same decade.

Fed faced a very tough Nadal and a very tough to be Djokovic, plus one timers DelPotro,Murray,Roddick ( who also reached a few more finals) and unconsistent two timers such as Hewitt and Safin.

I just think it is quite a weaker competition even if counting on Nadal and promising Djokovic, who has won less titles than Becker or Edberg to name a few ones...

Is it so difficult to assume? I mean you make like apples more than bananas, but if we talk about the shape of a banana, lest´s not pretend apples are also the same shape because it is convenient to us...

It means for all of the overrating of Federer's majors record (and some even go as far as to lift FO finals runner-up finishes as some sort of creit, when it means nothing in terms of majors dominance), Federer could win his one and only FO against someone who was NOT the generation's greatest FO champion. There's no tapdancing around Federer's luck in that situation.

To the original point, even at his so-called "prime," a period his cheerleaders claim is beyond anythig seen before--they have no explanation for his inability to win the Grand Slam. None--yet they want to say he's the greatest sans a greatest=level performance.

Click to expand...

That can be flipped around very easily into saying that

'Not even the generation's greatest FO champion could prevent Federer from eventually winning the FO title at least once in his career. Federer's incredible consistency eventually trumped Nadal's insane clay dominance, and when Federer was standing on the court waiting for the coin toss to decide who will serve first at RG 09 final, Nadal was out fishing.'

easy.And this has nothing to see with talent but with the reality of times.

Laver had to face, while winning the GS, multislam champs such as Newcombe,Hoad,Rosewall,Gonzales,Gimeno,Santana,Roche,Emerson,Stolle,Ashe ,Smith ( and he had also Kodes and Nastase in the fields) and Sampras had to deal with
Becker,Lendl,Courier,Agassi,Edberg,Stich,ivanisevic,Bruguera,Chang,Krajicek,Kafelnikov or Muster, who also won majors in the same decade.

Fed faced a very tough Nadal and a very tough to be Djokovic, plus one timers DelPotro,Murray,Roddick ( who also reached a few more finals) and unconsistent two timers such as Hewitt and Safin.

I just think it is quite a weaker competition even if counting on Nadal and promising Djokovic, who has won less titles than Becker or Edberg to name a few ones...

Is it so difficult to assume? I mean you make like apples more than bananas, but if we talk about the shape of a banana, lest´s not pretend apples are also the same shape because it is convenient to us...

Laver had to face old-guy Gonzales and he lost to him more times than he should have. Federer played old-guy Agassi and won, once he had come into his own. None of the players Laver faced won many Slams. He only had to contend with old-guy Gonzales and "I-can-only-play-on-Clay-but-still-win-on-other-surfaces-because-this-era-sucks" Rosewall. In fact, the only reason the weaklings of the era won any titles was because Laver wasn't good enough to dominate them. None of them is a GOAT candidate. They couldn't even stop a 30 year-old Laver from winning the true Grand Slam! :lol: How can that be a strong era? Total joke of an era.

Laver had to face old-guy Gonzales and he lost to him more times than he should have. Federer played old-guy Agassi and won, once he had come into his own. None of the players Laver faced won many Slams. He only had to contend with old-guy Gonzales and "I-can-only-play-on-Clay-but-still-win-on-other-surfaces-because-this-era-sucks" Rosewall. In fact, the only reason the weaklings of the era won any titles was because Laver wasn't good enough to dominate them. None of them is a GOAT candidate. They couldn't even stop a 30 year-old Laver from winning the true Grand Slam! :lol: How can that be a strong era? Total joke of an era.

See, I can do it too

The truth is, there's no way to say one era is weaker than the other.

Click to expand...

I never meant to troll and you know that I gave you a very reasonable answer.Maybe wrong or right but based on data, while yours is just an angered, bad mannered answer based on the emotion of the moment.

I never meant to troll and you know that I gave you a very reasonable answer.Maybe wrong or right but based on data, while yours is just an angered, bad mannered answer based on the emotion of the moment.

I think you can do better than that

Click to expand...

Your answer is biased at best and silly at worst. It's no more well-reasoned than my post is.

And data? If you go by data, one could easily say this era is tougher because Nadal is (from data) better than anyone from Laver's era. And Djokovic is better than most. Murray might get there, too. There's Del Potro. And then you can factor in Hewitt, Safin, Roddick and Agassi (who is again, by data, superior to anyone Laver faced). Your argument is meaningless any way you look at it.

You're answer is biased at best and silly at worst. It's no more well-reasoned than my post is.

And data? If you go by data, one could easily say this era is tougher because Nadal is (from data) better than anyone from Laver's era. And Djokovic is better than most. Murray might get there, too. There's Del Potro. And then you can factor in Hewitt, Safin, Roddick and Agassi (who is again, by data, superior to anyone Laver faced). Your argument is meaningless anyway you look at it.

Click to expand...

The current top 20 sucks compared to the top 20 of the 70´s whichever way you look at it.3 at max 4 competitive players that can win a major while there were 8-10 players able to.

The current top 20 sucks compared to the top 20 of the 70´s whichever way you look at it.3 at max 4 competitive players that can win a major while there were 8-10 players able to.

Click to expand...

I'd argue today's top 4 are major challenges capable of winning any Slam while, back then, the only reason people were able to win was because of Laver's incompetence, not through any skill of their own. Point is, I could argue anything.

How can a player be as dominant as Federer without making his era look weak? The only reason there are so few Slam-winners around is because Federer won so many, leaving so few left to be won. Back then there were so many tournaments going around, the amateur Slams, the pro Slams, there are obviously gonna be more winners with more Slams going about. Doesn't mean it was a strong era. If there were 10 Slams being played today with split fields there would be more winners with more Slams, too. The fields were very diminished. Most of Laver's Grand Slams came against amatuers. He won 14 other Slams, compared to Federer's 17. Still short.

The current top 20 sucks compared to the top 20 of the 70´s whichever way you look at it.3 at max 4 competitive players that can win a major while there were 8-10 players able to.

Click to expand...

And you know what, not to be disrespectful to the past greats without whom the sport wouldn't be what it is today, but I could go one step further and say players back then were nowhere near as professional as today and claim any top-50 player today would school the best of the best from back then because they're way better trained, way more athletic, and are way more developed physical specimen. And I would be right. The level of Tennis in the past 30-odd years has been a level higher than where it was in the 50s and 60s. Rod Laver himself has said 1 Slam today is worth 2 from his time.

The current top 20 sucks compared to the top 20 of the 70´s whichever way you look at it.3 at max 4 competitive players that can win a major while there were 8-10 players able to.

Click to expand...

The issue with you kiki is that you don't understand the definitions of some of the words you use. If this is just a language issue, then I apologize, but you can see how it throws everyone off when you claim you have facts (or data) to support your claims when you really just give your opinion over and over again about how the current top 20 sucks.

You also only care about the number of slam champions available. This either means there is a more even playing field (more people winning slams) or that people are playing well past their prime and picked up slams before other great players can begin their runs. Either way, it means that the players picking up slams aren't as dominant, or that they only have to face slam champions who are pushing the retirement age. In the past, it was a combination of both. It is hilarious that you use the utter domination of the extreme outliers as a negative, when in fact it is what defines the truly great players.

You also claim to hardly even watch modern tennis anymore (you can't stand it, and you often substitute current finals for clips of former greats), so why do you even post about the current players? You rant and rave about people who didn't watch tennis in the past but then you go and post nonsense about the current players when you will admit that you don't like watching them and you often don't. Take your own advice.

I'd argue today's top 4 are major challenges capable of winning any Slam while, back then, the only reason people were able to win was because of Laver's incompetence, not through any skill of their own. Point is, I could argue anything.

How can a player be as dominant as Federer without making his era look weak? The only reason there are so few Slam-winners around is because Federer won so many, leaving so few left to be won. Back then there were so many tournaments going around, the amateur Slams, the pro Slams, there are obviously gonna be more winners with more Slams going about. Doesn't mean it was a strong era. If there were 10 Slams being played today with split fields there would be more winners with more Slams, too. The fields were very diminished. Most of Laver's Grand Slams came against amatuers. He won 14 other Slams, compared to Federer's 17. Still short.

Click to expand...

He won 6 as an amateur and 5 as a pro, so that's a total of 11 grand slam titles. Obviously the 6 are the weakeast of the 11.

Kiki knows full well Laver benefitted from a small pool and the split fields, and he's just trolling. The only player who was competing in a weak field is Laver. It's weaker than today, 00s, 90s, 80s and 70s. No one would say it with a straight face that tennis and any sports is a spontaneous regression over time . Its absurd !

He won 6 as an amateur and 5 as a pro, so that's a total of 11 grand slam titles. Obviously the 6 are the weakeast of the 11.

Kiki knows full well Laver benefitted from a small pool and the split fields, and he's just trolling. The only player who was competing in a weak field is Laver. It's weaker than today, 00s, 90s, 80s and 70s. No one would say it with a straight face that tennis and any sports is a spontaneous regression over time . Its absurd !

Click to expand...

Exactly. Apparently the 60s was the epitome of Tennis field depth and strength :lol:

Exactly. Apparently the 60s was the epitome of Tennis field depth and strength :lol:

Click to expand...

Apparently according to Federer fans the toughest and strongest competition in tennis history is when Roddick and Hewitt were #2 and #3 in the game. Hence why ****s so desperately go out of their way to inflate the abilities of them and even say they are really better than Nadal or Djokovic despite the slam count, LOL!

GOAT
noun
1.
any of numerous agile, hollow-horned ruminants of the genus Capra, of the family Bovidae, closely related to the sheep, found native in rocky and mountainous regions of the Old World, and widely distributed in domesticated varieties.
2.
any of various related animals, as the Rocky Mountain goat.
3.
( initial capital letter ) Astronomy, Astrology . the constellation or sign capricorn.
4.
a scapegoat or victim.
5.
a licentious or lecherous man; lecher.
6.
Something Federer isn't

kiki wrote: Sampras had to deal with
Becker,Lendl,Courier,Agassi,Edberg,Stich,ivanisevi c,Bruguera,Chang,Krajicek,Kafelnikov or Muster, who also won majors in the same decade."

--

Not really; the true Lendl/Becker/Edberg era was pre-Sampras. Sampras era really began in 1993 and of those three only Becker won 1 single slam after that date. Bruguera and Muster were really clay courters and Sampras never came close to winning FO. Krajicek beat Pete.

As for Stich, he only played Sampras three times total 1993 and after, never in slams, the record was 2-1 for Stich in the matches they did play, so no huge feather in Pete's cap.

So in terms of who Sampras was actually beating to win his majors it was Agassi, Courier, Goran, Chang, Kafelnikov, Old Becker and some others like Todd Martin and Pioline. That's not all that amazing a group.

We all use the term GOAT however it has become painfully obvious that the term
Means different things to different people.

I'm calling on a bi partisan convention to try and come forward with some sort of unified definition of this very vague term.

If we can do that workout schewing the parameters towards ones favorite player then I think the debate will end once and for all......highly doubtful but at least it will be interesting to try.

Any takers?

Click to expand...

There is no such term as GOAT, apart from the farm animal. There is internet slang abbreviation called GOAT which stands for Greatest Of All Time. However in the real world, its impossible for a tennis player to go back in a time machine and play on the tour of the 1980s and 1960s etc., so there is no way for a player to qualify as GOAT. They would have to play in previous eras to prove it. And that is impossible. GOAT is impossible, and that is why it doesn't exist outside of the internet. On the internet people operate via fantasy rather than fact. The internet covers the whole world, so we see a lot of highly stupid people having a voice and talking about GOAT. According to the real world however, there is no such thing as GOAT.

And you know what, not to be disrespectful to the past greats without whom the sport wouldn't be what it is today, but I could go one step further and say players back then were nowhere near as professional as today and claim any top-50 player today would school the best of the best from back then because they're way better trained, way more athletic, and are way more developed physical specimen. And I would be right. The level of Tennis in the past 30-odd years has been a level higher than where it was in the 50s and 60s. Rod Laver himself has said 1 Slam today is worth 2 from his time.

Click to expand...

Well, Laver has 3...

and tennis is much more than just athletic bodies and well trained machines...or at least that is the way I look at it.I am not interested in another way to llok at it.

kiki wrote: Sampras had to deal with
Becker,Lendl,Courier,Agassi,Edberg,Stich,ivanisevi c,Bruguera,Chang,Krajicek,Kafelnikov or Muster, who also won majors in the same decade."

--

Not really; the true Lendl/Becker/Edberg era was pre-Sampras. Sampras era really began in 1993 and of those three only Becker won 1 single slam after that date. Bruguera and Muster were really clay courters and Sampras never came close to winning FO. Krajicek beat Pete.

As for Stich, he only played Sampras three times total 1993 and after, never in slams, the record was 2-1 for Stich in the matches they did play, so no huge feather in Pete's cap.

So in terms of who Sampras was actually beating to win his majors it was Agassi, Courier, Goran, Chang, Kafelnikov, Old Becker and some others like Todd Martin and Pioline. That's not all that amazing a group.

Apparently according to Federer fans the toughest and strongest competition in tennis history is when Roddick and Hewitt were #2 and #3 in the game. Hence why ****s so desperately go out of their way to inflate the abilities of them and even say they are really better than Nadal or Djokovic despite the slam count, LOL!

Click to expand...

Come on, no one has ever seriously suggested that Roddick and Hewitt are better than Nadal or Djokovic.

I also don't know why people parade Nadal and Djokovic around as evidence that Federer had a weak field. He's won thirteen slams since Nadal first became a slam champion (more than Nadal has won in that same period) and five since Djokovic became a slam champion (the same number as Djokovic has won in that period).

Tennis today is skills and athleticism. Back then it was just skills. We might enjoy skills more but athleticism is very important to winning matches, as Nadal and Djokovic are proving.

Click to expand...

You are right.And while some guys like Laver,Gonzales,Hoad and Newcombe were just as much atheltic as any current player, skill was much more rewarded, just the oppoiste than today.federer is the only guy that mixes up both things in the right way, and if you gave him a wooden racket and a good volley, he would fit perfectly well in the 80´s.

You are right.And while some guys like Laver,Gonzales,Hoad and Newcombe were just as much atheltic as any current player, skill was much more rewarded, just the oppoiste than today.federer is the only guy that mixes up both things in the right way, and if you gave him a wooden racket and a good volley, he would fit perfectly well in the 80´s.

Click to expand...

No way they were as athletic as players today. You either haven't seen their matches or you haven't seen a single match since the 90s.

No, you're revising history. Laver has 2(1962 & 1969). People don't care much about the 1962 since it was from the amateur. 1969 was still 3 grass and 1 clay.

Athletic and well trained may not be important in the 60s, but today if you lacks any discipline, forget it, you ain't going to be a great champion.

Click to expand...

In 67 won the Pro Slam, against some of the greatest ever tennis players.

I agree that discipline and training is basic, but so was in Laver´s time when the top players were clearly fit ( or at least the majority of them).Guys like Emerson and Kodes were great natural athletes, as a few others.

No way they were as athletic as players today. You either haven't seen their matches or you haven't seen a single match since the 90s.

Click to expand...

I don´t dipute the top players are very well trained.You just need to look at Nadal,Djokovic,Murray or Ferrer.Federer is also a natural athlete but is the closest one to the 70´s or 80´s, although the monotony of today´s game has taken a lot of his potential brightness.

I don´t dipute the top players are very well trained.You just need to look at Nadal,Djokovic,Murray or Ferrer.Federer is also a natural athlete but is the closest one to the 70´s or 80´s, although the monotony of today´s game has taken a lot of his potential brightness.

Click to expand...

Federer is a great athlete in Tennis terms. What he lacks in raw athleticism he makes up for with heavenly anticipation and remarkable footwork. And, in his prime, he had a lot of stamina and endurance as well.

In 67 won the Pro Slam, against some of the greatest ever tennis players.

I agree that discipline and training is basic, but so was in Laver´s time when the top players were clearly fit ( or at least the majority of them).Guys like Emerson and Kodes were great natural athletes, as a few others.

Click to expand...

Yes, but a Grand Slam is about winning 4 slam titles. The pro major only has 3 tournaments(French Pro, Wembley and US Pro) per year. Added to the fact that the draws consist between 8-14 players(slam has 128 players).

Well I was going off your original list. Yes, Rafter should definately be included as one of Pete GS rivals.

As for Bruguera, I dunno, Pete never went through him to win a GS, and had a losing record to him overall:From wikipeida: Bruguera is one of the few players to have a winning record against Sampras, winning three of their five matches: 1–0 on hard court, 2–1 on clay, and 0–1 on carpet

Come on, no one has ever seriously suggested that Roddick and Hewitt are better than Nadal or Djokovic.

I also don't know why people parade Nadal and Djokovic around as evidence that Federer had a weak field. He's won thirteen slams since Nadal first became a slam champion (more than Nadal has won in that same period) and five since Djokovic became a slam champion (the same number as Djokovic has won in that period).

Click to expand...

Nadal was a mug on clay until mid 2007 at the earliest and that is the same point Djokovic emerged as a top player for the first time, still only 20 himself. Yeah Federer has been successful since they emerged, but he hasnt been nearly as dominant (of course the ****s conveniently put that down to being way past his prime and a rickety old man starting at 26, the moment he began losing any non clay slams). The same way Sampras was the best in the World for 6 years, but not as dominant relative to Federer, but part of that is he was facing Becker, Agassi, Courier, Edberg, as opposed to Hewitt, Roddick, Davydenko, and Ljubicic. Nadal and Djokovic provide Federer with just a glimpse of the type of competition Sampras had, and how much harder it is be as dominant with actual fellow greats as competition, rather than just a few very good but not great players.

As for nobody arguing Hewitt and Roddick are better than Djokovic atleast, just take a look at the Hewitt vs Djokovic thread and you will see that is not the case.

Nadal was a mug on clay until mid 2007 at the earliest and that is the same point Djokovic emerged as a top player for the first time, still only 20 himself. Yeah Federer has been successful since they emerged, but he hasnt been nearly as dominant (of course the ****s conveniently put that down to being way past his prime and a rickety old man starting at 26, the moment he began losing any non clay slams). The same way Sampras was the best in the World for 6 years, but not as dominant relative to Federer, but part of that is he was facing Becker, Agassi, Courier, Edberg, as opposed to Hewitt, Roddick, Davydenko, and Ljubicic. Nadal and Djokovic provide Federer with just a glimpse of the type of competition Sampras had, and how much harder it is be as dominant with actual fellow greats as competition, rather than just a few very good but not great players.

As for nobody arguing Hewitt and Roddick are better than Djokovic atleast, just take a look at the Hewitt vs Djokovic thread and you will see that is not the case.

Click to expand...

You lost all credibility (not that you had much to begin with) with your first line. And you conveniently forget Safin, who is probably Federer's most talented peer. Sampras, like Nadal, had to contend with aging greats and, more importantly, a primary rival who was totally off-the-scene half the time.

Apparently according to Federer fans the toughest and strongest competition in tennis history is when Roddick and Hewitt were #2 and #3 in the game. Hence why ****s so desperately go out of their way to inflate the abilities of them and even say they are really better than Nadal or Djokovic despite the slam count, LOL!

Click to expand...

quoted for truth.

Historically speaking, exactly where to Hewitt and Roddick--with their overstated rankings--stand as true forces in the sport?

Nowhere, to be honest. They were blink-and-you-missed them in terms of cutting out a major piece of the sport's history, so for Federer fanatics to ever cite Roddick and/or Hewitt as competition of note illustrates how flimsy their "GOAT" claim is....

Historically speaking, exactly where to Hewitt and Roddick--with their overstated rankings--stand as true forces in the sport?

Nowhere, to be honest. They were blink-and-you-missed them in terms of cutting out a major piece of the sport's history, so for Federer fanatics to ever cite Roddick and/or Hewitt as competition of note illustrates how flimsy their "GOAT" claim is....

...that and Federer was not talented enough to win the Grand Slam.

Click to expand...

Roddick and Hewitt destroys Nadal at USO 2004 and AO 2005 when Nadal was in his HC prime! :neutral:

You lost all credibility (not that you had much to begin with) with your first line. And you conveniently forget Safin, who is probably Federer's most talented peer. Sampras, like Nadal, had to contend with aging greats and, more importantly, a primary rival who was totally off-the-scene half the time.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what Fed's detractors are trying to prove. All of these players(NOle,Murray,Nadal,Hewitt,Roddick,Safin,Del Potro,Tsonga, Davy, Haas, Gonzo,Bagdatis,Soderling...) ALL belongs to Fed's competition. They all compete against one another and all of their achievements when Fed was present. Fed won all of his slams by having to go through all of them since 2003(pre-prime, prime and post-prime), and his recent slam title was W this year.

If we're comparing Fed vs. Sampras, or Borg vs. Laver competition then this makes more sense because they each have their own playing field to content with. Sampras had his own group to deal with and so does Fed including the names I've mentioned above.

Do you agree that Safin was lazy and could have won more if he had worked hard?

Is laziness a GOAT attribute?

Click to expand...

If this and if that, maybe delicious fried wild mushrooms and pickled herring would grow right inside his mouth - that's what they would probably tell you in Kazan. When it comes to GOAT, it really isn't important if it's 2 or 20 slams. We all know the truth.